F1technical.net

Serbian4ever wrote:http://s32.postimg.org/jnodyugkl/best_s ... mes_21.png
Thats why i think Honda pu is better.

Top speeds (speed trap):

GoranF1 wrote:https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 8839764992

No news on ICE upgrades?

GoranF1 wrote:https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 8839764992

For the Race in Spain or the Test afterwards?

Maybe stretching the truth...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 50-seconds

stevesingo wrote:Maybe stretching the truth...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 50-seconds

50 seconds sounds a bit much to me . Seems like a very fuel hungry engine then

Henne wrote:

stevesingo wrote:Maybe stretching the truth...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 50-seconds

50 seconds sounds a bit much to me . Seems like a very fuel hungry engine then

I think EB is start to feel the heat of the Honda improvements and he is trying to create a smoke screen in order to easy the preassure over the Mclaren responsability on the chassis and aero deficit.
Honda have a long way to go but EB is making that is his problems are only Honda related.

Can someone tell me how are they planning to equalize the performance of the Power Units in 2017?

The next tokens used will most likely be for the MGU-H because it needs better cooling.So that will improve the ERS.

The only improvements to do to this spec PU is too fix the MGU-H(better ER) and better software.(better deployment)
So they can get a few more tenths of a second.With this PU design,they are maxed out with the fuel flow now.

The big step for performance will need a new combustion(pre-chamber and better injectors) and bigger turbo.

stevesingo wrote:Maybe stretching the truth...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 50-seconds

Seems like he is assuming they are the only team running in a fuel save mode during any part of the race. If the Honda PU is that thirsty, it would be that much down on power since efficiency is the only way to more power in this formula. He seems to state it isn't that down on power if run in normal mode. Kind of contradicting.

The 2016 PU will be improved with better (Jet Ignition like) combustion. And in the lab, they will be working on a new turbo for 2017 i guess. Then combine those two next year and finetune during the season to be ready in 2018 ?

Sasha wrote:The next tokens used will most likely be for the MGU-H because it needs better cooling.So that will improve the ERS.

The only improvements to do to this spec PU is too fix the MGU-H(better ER) and better software.(better deployment)
So they can get a few more tenths of a second.With this PU design,they are maxed out with the fuel flow now.

The big step for performance will need a new combustion(pre-chamber and better injectors) and bigger turbo.

Can they and will they aply pre-chamber to this years engine?

GoranF1 wrote: Can they and will they aply pre-chamber to this years engine?

This will be the token related to the combustion chamber change. Which is the entire cylinder head

If the valves are moved more tokens are to be used

If cam is changed that is another token

Sasha wrote:The next tokens used will most likely be for the MGU-H because it needs better cooling.So that will improve the ERS.

The only improvements to do to this spec PU is too fix the MGU-H(better ER) and better software.(better deployment)
So they can get a few more tenths of a second.With this PU design,they are maxed out with the fuel flow now.

The big step for performance will need a new combustion(pre-chamber and better injectors) and bigger turbo.

You'd think that Improving cooling would require 0 tokens as it is reliability fix. You should be able to run it hard enough in Free practice to have it fail then.

dren wrote:

stevesingo wrote:Maybe stretching the truth...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 50-seconds

Seems like he is assuming they are the only team running in a fuel save mode during any part of the race. If the Honda PU is that thirsty, it would be that much down on power since efficiency is the only way to more power in this formula. He seems to state it isn't that down on power if run in normal mode. Kind of contradicting.

I concur.

Two years ago we saw consumpton figures, and Williams was consuming remakably less than Mercedes. Williams was a lower drag car than Mercedes, the engine presumably should have been the same...
In this formula, it's about percentage of full throttle (=100 kg/h) and part load efficiency. The former is given by chassis and drag, as a low drag car transits a straight quicker (in less time) and can apply full throttle later out of the corner. So it will consume less.
Not sure about what percentage is part load operation, but it's surely not that high. The Honda Paper about the RA168E mentions 63.6% full throttle, 19.8% closed throttle and only 16.6% part loads in Imola.

If we make this 60% / 20% / 20%, then for 80% of the time with either full or zero throttle, we have 75kg / h consumption. In a 1.5h race, this is already 90 kg. Changing the ratio of full to part load / zero load can only be done by driver will or aero configuration. The engine itself will not change much.

We can safely assume that either McLaren has rather high drag or that the others had to save fuel to a similar extent (which is what I believe).